Good faith obligations still applied despite decision not to proceed with disciplinary process

The Employment Court found that a letter of outcome issued by an employer to an employee amounted to an unjustified disadvantage grievance and ordered the employer to pay $20,000 in compensation. The employer commenced an investigation into an email that the employer was concerned amounted to a security breach, but which the employee disputed ever sending. Ultimately the employer concluded it was very likely the employee had sent the email. However, the employer decided not to pursue a disciplinary process and instead just gave the employee a letter of outcome. When providing the employee with that letter, the employer said that should an incident of a similar nature or breach of security occur in the future, it might result in a disciplinary process. The employer attempted to argue that it should not be held to a procedural standard that would be expected if the employer had chosen to undertake a disciplinary process (indicating the employer thought some lesser standard should apply). However, the Court did not accept that the employer’s actions could be measured against a diluted procedural standard. The Court expressed a number of concerns in relation to the employer’s process, ultimately concluding that the employer had not acted in a fair and reasonable way nor complied with its good faith obligations.

Johnson v Chief of the New Zealand Defence Force

Reproduced with permission of Wolters Kluwer

unjustified disadvantage grievance, employment lawyer, employment lawyer auckland, employment law, employment court, duty of faith, disciplinary process, good faith obligations, bossed

185 views0 comments


Proudly created with